I've also wanted all MF (medium format) manufacturers to at the very least offer 1-3 leaf lenses (especially in the portraiture lens range) where the option to use the leaf or focal shutter is available via menu options, but I don't think there's enough people wanting leaf lenses for companies like Pentax and Hasselblad to spend the development money that it requires to make a new leaf lens, that relatively few photographers would find a need for.. especially when HSS is a viable alternative for many photographers.
As far as the portrait lens range and medium format cameras, there does not even seem to be a current medium format digital counterpart to what I regard as classics for tight head shots, the 135mm on FF / 35mm film, and the 250mm on 6x6. Maybe I don't understand the market, but that really surprises me.
That's something that has raised my eyebrow before as well as I wish there were generally longer focal lengths (I realize that I'm the exception to the rule). Oddly enough Pentax offers a lens array that fits me pretty well, though I think they can do better by revamping their older lenses with new coatings and wider apertures.
Pentax offers 90, 120, 150, 200, 300, 400 and 600mm, 645 lenses. That's not too shabby. The 90mm f/2.8 macro stabilized lens, is one of the newer lenses and is a competent lens - I skipped it and opted for the older 120mm f/4 macro instead, which is the first lens I'll grab for portraiture.. if not the 300mm. Overall I definitely prefer longer focal lengths for portraiture. When shooting "partial" body shots I'll even grab the 400mm which is akin to using a 300mm lens on a FF Canon/Nikon, and about 250mm on a 645 film camera which works fine, though longer and faster lenses would be even more preferred (by me) for location portraiture. I'd love to ditch the long-in-the-tooth 400 f/5.6 for a modern 400 f/2.8. ... a 300 f/2 would also be more than just tempting.
Note: on Canon/Nikon my preference for portraiture.. 100mm Ziess f/2 makro, 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8 (same practically the same quality as the 300 f/4 stopped down to my eyes), and the 400 f/2.8.... with the 70-200 f/2.8 being an exceptional all-rounder.
The Hasselblad H series had portraiture covered pretty well.. with the 120 and 300mm lenses. Likewise the new X series with 120 and the 135 (f/2.8)mm lenses... (I'd want for even longer focal lengths - a 300 f2 or 2.8 would fit me fine irrespective of the weight if i shot the X series... f/2 please!
Does the GFX system have a 180mm or 185mm? No, the primes go from the 120mm macro to 250mm.
120mm is pretty standard across the MF sphere for macro and portrait work, which gives roughly the same result as shooting 100mm lens on FF. Not an issue for me, especially if 250, 300mm, or longer is offered... but I do wish longer focal lengths were offered. At least Pentax has some longer focal lengths from their old pipeline.
Does the Hasselblad X system have a 180mm or 185mm? No, the primes top out at 135mm (alone or sold with a 1.7x TC to give 230mm). Phase One offers a 240mm, which gives the equivalent of 155mm on the larger sensors in current Phase One backs.
Pentax offers a 200mm, which gives the equivalent of 158mm on a 645Z. But none of these systems offers a lens between the equivalent of 107mm and the equivalent of 155mm.
It seems as if either aesthetically or from a practical standpoint, you're really wanting/needing a particular focal length range. Would 250 or 300mm possibly work for you? I find that range quite delightful on 645 (film or digital). What do you shoot most at the longer focal lengths?
